Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 437

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know

Open access
Komarek, Adam M., De Pinto, Alessandro, Smith, Vincent H.·2020·Agricultural Systems

Abstract

This study examines the scope and depth of research on the five major types of risks in agriculture, and the extent to which those studies have addressed the impacts of, and policies to mitigate individual types of risk as opposed to more holistic analyses of the multiple sources of risk with which farmers have to cope with. Risk is at the center of new paradigms and approaches that inform risk management initiatives and shape investments in many countries. Although the literature includes several substantive reviews of the methods available for risk analysis and their empirical applications have been extensively scrutinized, limited information exists about which types of risks have received sufficient attention, and which have not. This limited information is perplexing because farmers manage multiple risks at the same time and unanticipated events continue to have substantial impacts on farmers. We identify 3283 peer-reviewed studies that address one or more of the five major types of risk in agriculture (production risk, market risk, institutional risk, personal risk, and financial risk) published between 1974 and 2019. We conduct a literature search and then apply an eligibility criteria to retain eligible studies from the search. We then classify those eligible studies based on risk type and geographic focus. We placed no limit on the temporal scale, geographic focus, or study method for inclusion in our search. Results show that 66% of the 3283 studies focused solely on production risk, with only 15% considering more than one type of risk. Only 18 studies considered all five types of risk and those either asked how farmers perceived the importance of each risk or were focused on conceptual issues, rather than assessing how exposure to all the risks quantitatively affects farm indicators such as yields or incomes. Without more detailed analyses of the multiple types of risks faced by farmers, farmers and policymakers will lack the information needed to devise relevant risk management strategies and policies. A shift in research focus towards the analysis of multiple contemporaneous types of risk may provide a basis that gives farmers greater options for coping with and managing risk. We discuss some of the challenges for studying multiple risks simultaneously, including data requirements and the need for probability distributions and the role of simulation approaches.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102738

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 52 references

Cited by

See all 437

Metadata

Authors
Komarek, A. M., De Pinto, A., & Smith, V. H.
Venue
Agricultural Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
178
Pages
102738
ISSN
0308-521X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2989777413
Cited by
437
References
52
FWCI
23.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102738
The paper
Komarek, A. M., De Pinto, A., & Smith, V. H. (2020). A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know. Agricultural Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102738

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.